Joined: 3/12/2011Posts: 561Location: somewhere on the coast, United States

I will strongly disagree that bigotry is more one sided to the right. I feel that the extreme right does exhibit a lot of bigotry but I also feel very strongly that the extreme left matches their bigotry step for step.

I am so GD sick and tired of how politics are in this country. I hate the mud slinging and hate mongering that goes on. In print, on the radio and television. It makes me not want to vote for any of the assholes. Whatever happened to integrity, dignity and manners? I wouldn't hire any of them to mow my damn lawn. They might steal the grass.

Joined: 3/12/2011Posts: 561Location: somewhere on the coast, United States

A male that feels that they can intimidate a female member on here on Lush by sending her unwelcome and unsolicited personal messages and then gets RUDE because she disagrees is a very small man, small mind and probably small in other places too!

A male that feels that they can intimidate a female member on here on Lush by sending her unwelcome and unsolicited personal messages and then gets RUDE because she disagrees is a very small man, small mind and probably small in other places too!

Sorry to hear you've been targeted. Hang in there my friend.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

A male that feels that they can intimidate a female member on here on Lush by sending her unwelcome and unsolicited personal messages and then gets RUDE because she disagrees is a very small man, small mind and probably small in other places too!

A male that feels that they can intimidate a female member on here on Lush by sending her unwelcome and unsolicited personal messages and then gets RUDE because she disagrees is a very small man, small mind and probably small in other places too!

If your block feature is not working you might want to use the contact us button on the front page. You can also report him the same way.

A high-ranking official at the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation has resigned amid fallout from the charity's move, since reversed, to halt funding for breast cancer screening by Planned Parenthood.

Karen Handel, a former Republican candidate for governor in Georgia, resigned her job, effective immediately, as senior vice president for public policy. The Associated Press first reported the move. The Komen foundation confirmed the report in an email to Shots.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution posted a copy of Handel's resignation letter. In it, Handel wrote that the decision to "exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization." And, she wrote, "No objections were made to moving forward."

Hey Mr. Nudie,Yea that Karen Handel ran for governor of Georgia. She had great poll numbers at the beginning and then she ran one of the most vicious aggressive negative attack campaigns I have ever seen by a political candidate. It backfired on her and her opponent came from way down to beat her in the Republican primary. I actually kind of liked her at first (just to have a viable female candidate I thought) but not far into the campaign I had ended up despising her. She came across as the meanest person you could ever imagine. I think her political views are decided only by what some focus group tells her is popular because she has been all over the place in her political career. Typical politician, they have no real ethics, morals or views. They just pick a side that they believe will get them elected depending upon their voting district or whatever.

These charity groups don't need to be run by politicians but by people who love the mission and serving. Hopefully Komen will put someone better in place and just focus on coming up with better treatments and a cure for breast cancer.

The proposed legislation is a response to HB 954, a bill sponsored by Republican Doug McKillips that seeks to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

A group of female Democratic legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives has proposed a bill that would ban men from seeking vasectomies.

"Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies," said bill author Yasmin Neal in a statement. "It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women's ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States." Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.

Good! No vasectomy after the age of 35 for men. If they screw around and get someone pregnant then they have to have full custody of the child after it's born. From day 1 forward while the woman gets back into shape, finds and gets a job,(or goes back to work) stops for beers with the girls after work to show pictures of her kid and get a lot of atta-girl slaps on the back from her friends. If they're living together, when she comes home from work she can coochiecoo the baby and then sit on her ass and wait for food. In the meantime he gets to feed, clean, nurture and then figure out babysitting/daycare for what he brought forth.

Good! No vasectomy after the age of 35 for men. If they screw around and get someone pregnant then they have to have full custody of the child after it's born. From day 1 forward while the woman gets back into shape, finds and gets a job,(or goes back to work) stops for beers with the girls after work to show pictures of her kid and get a lot of atta-girl slaps on the back from her friends. If they're living together, when she comes home from work she can coochiecoo the baby and then sit on her ass and wait for food. In the meantime he gets to feed, clean, nurture and then figure out babysitting/daycare for what he brought forth.

Just to make my sentiments clear, they couldn't make a 'like' button big enough for ChefK's comment there. If it weren't such a screen-hog, I'd have posted a youtube video of the Halleluhah Chorus too!

"Sting" by anti-abortion group showing Planned Parenthood supports abortion based on gender. Hard to look past the people who carried out the "sting", but if this holds true, is it shocking? We'd blast China for doing it, right? Although it's said that in China that babies are killed after they are born and are girls.

"This spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America also told The Huffington Post that the organization condemns seeking abortions on the basis of gender, but its policy is to provide “high quality, confidential, nonjudgmental care to all who come into” its health centers. That means that no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions (Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois)."

Can an organization condemn something while still doing what they say they condemn?

Is gender a suitable reason?

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

While I personally can't imagine aborting a fetus based on gender, it certainly should never made illegal. "I made a choice" is all the justification that should ever be needed. Anything more is a blatant breach of a woman's right to privacy.

As far as Planned Parenthood not flinching when a patient/client mentions their wish to abort based on gender...I agree that it would be more palatable if the PP employee suggested other options upon hearing this from a prospective mother. But it's not PP's place to make moralistic judgments and browbeat their clientele over the head with them. A history of women being judged on their predicaments in society at large is a big reason why PP is such an important organization.

In short, a woman's body is her business, and PP is there as an advocate for her wishes, within the extents of what's legal and safe. I'd hope that all options would be discussed, though, regardless of the motivations that the woman divulges. For all we know, that happened, and this group of zealots chose to edit that portion out.

I agree, partly. It would be impossible to enforce. If it were illegal, then a woman would never actually SAY she was aborting because of the gender of the baby. The bigger issue is timing. To know the gender of a baby it has to be, what? Twenty weeks into pregnancy? At that point, I'm a little less comfortable with a choice being made to terminate a healthy baby for most any reason. Gender bias would be far down the list.

The long term ramifications of selective birth/abortion based solely on wants/desires of a baby would be bad. It would be like aborting because a kid had blond hair instead of brown. As science gets even better over the years we'll be able to know everything about a kid before it's ever born. Hair color, eye color, probably height/weight. I support a woman's choice to give birth, but "choice" can't used as a shield to allow whimical, non-medical, non-financial burden type causes. At 20+ weeks, if the baby is healthy, aborting seems unnecessary.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

I support a woman's choice to give birth, but "choice" can't used as a shield to allow whimical, non-medical, non-financial burden type causes. At 20+ weeks, if the baby is healthy, aborting seems unnecessary.

But that's the thing: choice is choice is choice. The reasons are irrelevant, within the hotly debatable legal timeframe for abortions. To pry and insist on a woman to offer justification, even if she figures out how to mislead with her answers to get what she wants, is a breach of her privacy.

But that's the thing: choice is choice is choice. The reasons are irrelevant, within the hotly debatable legal timeframe for abortions. To pry and insist on a woman to offer justification, even if she figures out how to mislead with her answers to get what she wants, is a breach of her privacy.

I'm not necessarily saying it should or could be legally mandated. But if a person decides they are willing and able to have a child, fully intending to raise the child, only to back out of the deal later after learning the kid isn't "right" for whatever reason... that makes them a shitty person.

If there are no medical conditions that would put mother and/or child in danger, why not deliver the child and put up for adoption? I'm not talking about the normal reasons for abortion. This is a willing participant in pregnancy. No trauma during conception, no medical dangers from childbirth. At what point during the nine month gestation is it too late to choose to end it?

Government makes choices for us in all facets of life. I can choose to drive without a seatbelt, but it's illegal. I can choose to take a piss on a sidewalk, but it's illegal. Choice doesn't negate responsibility.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.